On Dec 27, 12:29 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2007 10:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Instead of remaking the wheel for a sage client side application, one
> > possibility would be to use something like QT 4 + webkit (webkit is
> > the browser engine derived from konqueror's KHTML and used in OS X's
> > Safari browser). Functionality from the notebook could be directly
> > used via webkit, and additional functionality could be added elsewhere
> > if it doesn't make sense to have it in the notebook. QT is cross
> > platform and open source, and there is a python language binding
> > (PyQT) that seems actively developed. Also, for what it is worth,
> > I've never seen so many developers speak so highly of a GUI toolkit as
> > I have seen for QT (I have little experience myself other than as a
> > user of many great QT applications).
>
> > For a recent review including QT/webkit, see:
> >http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071226-first-look-qt-4-4-0-wit...
>
> > I almost certainly won't have time to work on this much myself in the
> > near future, but thought I'd pass on the idea if anyone is very eager
> > to make a GUI that feels like an enhanced version of one of the
> > popular CAS environments. It isn't something I really need, but I
> > suppose quite a few people might like it.
>
> Any chance you could be more precise, or describe some examples
> of exactly what you mean? Are there any nontrivial GUI applications
> that are written the way you are describing above.
I doubt it, since QT 4.4 hasn't been released yet and will be the
first version with webkit integration. On MS Windows I've seen a
number of applications that like to integrate Internet Explorer in
this fashion, though I can't remember any nontrivial examples.
> If we don't "remake the wheel for a sage client side application,"
> what would be the advantage of what you describe above over just using the
> Sage notebook via Firefox or Konqueror or Safari? I'm not being rhetorical;
> it's just that what you're suggesting is a bit too abstract for me.
Using something native like QT could provide faster widgets than AJAX,
and also allow for an integrated environment for some visualization
libraries that cannot be accessed from the notebook. You could
distribute the client side application as a separate package with the
visualization libraries and any other client side libraries/
applications that can't be used from the notebook, then connect
remotely to a sage notebook server. I understand it is best to get as
much functionality in the notebook as possible, but usability could be
enhanced via fast widgets, menus, and extra libraries included as one
integrated application.
>
> Also, does this webkit have a completely javascript interpreter?
Looks like it isn't completely ECMAscript compliant, but is getting
there fast. Last I heard it supported some fairly complex AJAX apps
(like gmail), but I haven't tested it much myself - I usually use
firefox and opera these days.
> Sorry if I sound completely clueless.
Nope, I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile - I have yet to use many
of the visualization tools in sage, so I'm the clueless one here.
> -- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
